Findings Of Fact On September 13, 1977, SFWMD advised Coquina by letter that "[a]t its September 8, 1977 meeting the Governing Board of this District gave Conceptual Approval of [Coquina's] surface water management plan . . . subject to the four special conditions found on page 15 of the District's staff report. . . [and an] additional special condition Joint exhibit No. 5. The first special condition found on page 15 of the District's staff report requires that complete construction plans be submitted, including "supporting calculations for all design elements not already submitted and any other plans necessary to assure adherence to the concept plan." Joint exhibit No. 2, page 15. The plan approved by SFWMD is designed to lower the water table in a 22 square mile area northwest of Lake Okeechobee in Okeechobee County. In its natural state, the land lies under water for part of the year. The corporate owner of the land has plans to subdivide it and sell residential lots, beginning with the four contiguous sections as to which the present application for a construction permit has been made. These four sections (phase I) lie north and south of each other in the western portion of the larger tract. The proposed construction would consist of digging ditches or swales paralleling existing and planned roads; building intersecting collector swales running north and south; installing ditch checks where swales intersect; dredging a retention pond into which the collector swales could empty at the south end of the phase I tract; digging an outfill ditch to channel water leaving the retention area for Ash Slough; and erecting a weir, between the retention area and the slough. Culverts through the weir would be equipped "with standard flash board risers in which the water level is regulated by stop logs which can be added or removed," Coquina's exhibit No. 1, p. 10, and the culverts would ordinarily serve as the route by which water from the retention area would reach Ash Slough. Under extremely wet conditions, however, water from the retention area could overflow the weir. The intervening petitioners own land on Ash Slough downstream from the retention area and adjacent to the southern boundary of the phase I tract. No formal studies of the likely effects of the proposed construction downstream were undertaken by Coquina or by SFWMD in evaluating Coquina's application. The surface water management plan given conceptual approval by SFWMD provides: The quantity of runoff flowing to the south through existing sloughs will be controlled to protect the downstream areas against flooding whereas at the present there is no control. The amount flowing to the existing sloughs to the south during the 25 yr. design storm will be limited to the amount flowing to those sloughs before any development takes place. Lesser storms will be more completely retained on the property. Controlled discharge will be provided from retention areas to the existing sloughs for the purpose of nourishing these streams. Coquina's exhibit No. 1, p. 1. (Emphasis supplied) Since no records of the amount of discharge to Ash Slough "before any development" are in existence, certain assumptions and estimates were made. One such assumption on which the application for construction permit proceeds is that the phase I tract all drains to the south, in its present state. In fact, some of the water now leaving the phase I tract travels in a westerly direction and never enters Ash Slough, at least under some weather conditions. If the proposed construction is accomplished, the phase I tract would all drain to the south through Ash Slough. As things now stand, a significant amount of water leaves the phase I tract by evapotranspiration. If the water table were lowered two and a half feet, which is what Coquina proposes, less water would leave the phase I tract by evapotranspiration, leaving more water to flow over the ground. In estimating the quantity of the anticipated discharge to Ash Slough, if the proposed construction takes place, it is necessary to take into account drainage onto the phase I tract from adjoining lands. Coquina has failed to furnish plans and supporting calculations sufficient to insure that the proposed construction will not increase the amount of flow to Ash Slough during the 25 year design storm. Increased flow to Ash Slough would aggravate downstream landowners' drainage problems, unless the slough could handle the additional flow, a question which the application does not address. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 34O So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SFWMD deny Coquina's application for construction permit. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraph one of intervening Bass petitioners' proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the evidence did not demonstrate that downstream landowners would in fact be harmed. Paragraphs two, three, four, five, six and seven of intervening Bass petitioners' proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph one of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except for the date of the application. Paragraphs two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and thirteen of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact have been adopted in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph ten of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact stated a conclusion of law, in part. While "testimony was presented that the construction of Phase I would have no substantial adverse affect [sic] on surrounding properties," the evidence as a whole did not establish this fact. Paragraphs eleven and twelve of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact have not been adopted because they were not established by the evidence, except for subparagraph eleven (f), which was proven. COPIES FURNISHED: John Henry Wheeler, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Robert Birenbaum, President Viking Communities Corporation (Coquina Water Management District) 123 Northeast 70 Street Miami, Florida 33138 Kyle S. Van Landingham, Esquire County Attorney Okeechobee County Courthouse Okeechobee, Florida 33472 Andrew B. Jackson, Esquire J.C. Bass & Bass Ranch, Inc. Post Office Box 488 Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Emerson Allsworth, Esquire 1177 Southeast Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. Bob Wittenberg Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dr. Patrick M. McCaffrey Kissimmee Coordinating Council 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George Stansbury Central Florida Regional Planning Council Post Office Box 2089 Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue Whether Respondent, American Water Service Company, Inc., (“American Water”), discriminated against Petitioner, Micheal D. Bristol (“Bristol”), in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Bristol is a 33-year-old, Caucasian male. He has been diagnosed with lumbar disk degeneration, depression, and anxiety. He holds a General Education Degree. At all times relevant hereto, Bristol was employed by American Water as a customer service representative. A customer service representative fields calls from American Water’s customers concerning complaints, renewals, changes in services, or other issues. The customer service representative uses a telephone and computer to respond to between 60 and 100 customer inquiries per day. The customer’s account information is brought up on the customer service representative’s computer in order to assist with whatever issue is raised concerning the customer’s complaint or issue. American Water is a utilities company that contracts with municipalities to provide water and sewer services to the citizens of the cities. It is a national company with water utility customers in several states. It is governed in part by the Public Utilities Commission and is charged with meeting certain standards regarding customer complaints. Having customer service representatives who are available and qualified is an important factor in meeting those standards. There are between 200 and 250 customer service representatives at American Water’s office in Pensacola, Florida, where Bristol was employed. American Water has another customer service center in Alton, Illinois, with about 200 customer service representatives. Calls coming in from customers are routed to the first available representative, regardless of at which service center they are working. Each representative sits in a cubicle with a desk holding two computer monitors, a telephone, and other necessary equipment. The customer service representatives wear headsets for the telephone which have cords of five to six feet in length. The back side of the cubicle is open to a common area. It is imperative that American Water maintain an adequate workforce of representatives each day. Using historical data, American Water tries to estimate the number of representatives who must be working each hour of each day. Some days historically have more incoming calls than other days, and American Water staffs accordingly. It is understood that some employees may need to take sick leave from time to time. All employees are given vacation days. Thus, making sure that there are enough workers on any given day is a moving target, yet it is integral to the work being done. American Water has instituted policies to help assure adequate staff. For example, there is a limit on the number of employees who may be on vacation at any given time. Some employees are allowed to work part time, but with a very definitive schedule. All employees are required to notify American Water immediately if they are unable to work on their assigned dates and times. Attendance is a singularly important requirement for an American Water customer service representative. At some point in time after he was first hired by American Water, Bristol was diagnosed with a degenerative disk disorder. The disorder causes him discomfort, making it difficult to sit for long periods of time. (However, see paragraph 19, below.) Bristol left his employment with American Water in October 2010. In May 2011, he returned to American Water, again as a representative in the customer service center. He had the same duties as in his previous employment. As Bristol began to experience more problems with his back, he began to use up all of his annual leave and sick leave when he felt he was unable to work. There was no evidence presented at final hearing as to how many annual leave hours employees receive, but each employee is allowed 80 sick leave hours per year. In 2012, Bristol applied for additional leave under FMLA and was approved for 480 hours, equivalent to 60 full work days. American Water approved intermittent leave under FMLA for one day per month with up to two days per time. During calendar year 2012, Bristol used some but not all of his FMLA leave. Bristol reapplied for FMLA leave again in February 2013, and was approved for another 480 hours. In that year, he used all 480 hours of FMLA leave. Bristol took leave whenever he felt like his back pain would prevent him from working. The leave was described as “intermittent” because there was no regular schedule or times associated with the leave. His schedule was, therefore, contrasted from a part-time employee who works fewer hours on a predetermined but regular schedule. On or about November 18, 2013, Bristol was notified that his FMLA leave had been used up. He had also exhausted his annual leave and sick leave allotment. Despite the fact that Bristol’s intermittent leave had created scheduling problems for the company, an employee of American Water provided Bristol with the necessary paperwork for requesting leave under the Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”). Part of that paperwork was a Health Care Provider Statement (“HCPS”) to be completed by his physician. Bristol was advised that after completing the HCPS, American Water would try to ascertain whether there were any accommodations they could provide to him on the job. Bristol submitted the HCPS to his treating physician to be completed and returned to American Water. Meanwhile, American Water tried to accommodate Bristol’s condition. He was provided an ergonomic work station, having a desk that could be raised or lowered, allowing Bristol to work while standing or sitting. He could change positions as needed to alleviate his back pain as much as possible. He could move, albeit not very far, within his small work area. Contradictory testimony was presented as to the exact size or configuration of the work space, so how much Bristol was able to move around is not clear. It is clear, however, that American Water attempted to accommodate his needs as much as the situation allowed. Bristol’s physician, Dr. Carie Fletcher, completed and signed the HCPS on November 26, 2013. The form was provided to American Water. Based upon the information supplied by Dr. Fletcher, American Water notified Bristol by letter dated December 2, 2013, that the current ergonomic work station and job duties were sufficient accommodations for the malady described by his doctor. Bristol said he did not believe the accommodations were sufficient. American Water thereafter asked Dr. Fletcher whether she had anything to add concerning Bristol’s disability or impairment. In response to that inquiry, Dr. Fletcher amended her previous submission, specifically on sections 4(b) and 7 of the form. Section 4(b) asks this question: “Is the Patient ‘substantially limited’ as to the condition, manner, or duration under which the Patient can perform that major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” Dr. Fletcher had originally stated, “Cannot stand/sit for prolonged periods (>1 hr), cannot lift objects >25 lbs secondary to back pain.” Upon American Water’s inquiry, she added this statement: “May expect exacerbation of back pain/DJD intermittently, up to 5-7 occurrences per month, at two days per occurrence.”2/ The question at section 7 of the form asked, “Does the diagnosed condition or conditions affect the Patient’s ability to perform any one of the essential functions of the Patient’s position?”. Dr. Fletcher originally stated: “Recommend allowing frequent position changes, limit lifting; will likely still experience intermittent exacerbations of back pain.” When American Water asked for additional detail, Dr. Fletcher added: “Please allow pt to stand and walk at liberty for approx five minutes every hour.” The amendments were provided to American Water on December 10, 2013. American Water’s HR personnel discussed the doctor’s recommendations and decided that the ergonomic work area and the extension cord on the telephone headset would allow Bristol the movement and flexibility needed. Lifting heavy objects was not part of Bristol’s job duties, so that was not discussed. Dr. Fletcher did not specifically suggest intermittent leave for Bristol, nor did she state that he would need to take leave five to seven times per month at one to two days per time. Rather, her response to American Water’s inquiry was that Bristol “may expect exacerbation” of his condition five to seven times a month. In section 8 of the form – which is the section for the physician to recommend accommodations – Dr. Fletcher wrote only, “As noted above.” (Again, see endnote 2, below). On January 31, 2014, American Water again contacted Dr. Fletcher for additional information. She was asked about Bristol’s mental or psychological disorder, to which she replied, “depression and anxiety” but that the condition did not currently limit Bristol’s activities. As to the lumbar disk degeneration, the limitations were listed as, “limits his ability to sit/stand/lift items and duration of work tolerated.” Dr. Fletcher was provided a matrix outlining Bristol’s essential job functions and asked what accommodations might be warranted for each. Dr. Fletcher replied to those inquiries on February 6 as follows (paraphrased): As for typing, Bristol may need to take breaks every hour; As for sitting, Bristol should be allowed to move/walk for five minutes every hour; As for standing, Bristol should be allowed to sit/rest for five minutes every hour; As to whether he could work full time, i.e., attendance, yes, as long as the previously noted accommodations were provided. It is significant that Dr. Fletcher again did not recommend intermittent leave for Bristol. Bristol nonetheless continued to ask American Water to approve intermittent leave as an accommodation. The primary reason American Water would not approve intermittent leave for Bristol was that it was necessary to be able to staff the customer service center at all times. Allowing employees to miss work randomly would adversely affect American Water’s ability to insure adequate staff. In fact, American Water considered Bristol a very good employee and would have preferred to retain him if possible. This was despite an allegation that Bristol had forwarded computer screen shots of customers to his personal email address, a terminable offense. American Water considered its actions to be in compliance with the recommendations of Dr. Fletcher. Although attached to a headset wire, Bristol had some minimal ability to move about his work space. He was able to stand when he needed to stand and sit when he needed to sit. He was not required to lift anything over 25 pounds. He was able to leave his work station to walk around every hour or so, but would have to log out temporarily to do so. Employees could log out using a special “AUX” code for bathroom breaks. It must be noted that during the entirety of the final hearing, Bristol sat without taking (or asking for) any breaks. He did not take advantage of breaks requested by others; rather, he remained seated as he talked with his counsel. His willingness and ability to remain seated during the final hearing flies in the face of his stated difficulties while working at American Water. While there may be some unstated reason that Bristol did not need relief at the final hearing, without some explanation that fact significantly affects the credibility of his testimony.3/ Bristol continued to miss many days (or parts of days) at work after his FMLA leave was used up. Being away from one’s work station for over an hour was considered an absence by American Water.4/ He presumed that those absences would ultimately be covered or approved under his anticipated ADA leave, but no one ever told him that would be the case (nor did he inquire about it). His presumption was based on the fact that his prior absences while applying for FMLA leave had been covered once FMLA was approved. While waiting for a response to the ADA leave request, Bristol continued working at American Water – and continued missing all or parts of days from work. He would ask his direct supervisor, Shelby Weese, about the status of his ADA application from time to time, but she did not have any information from HR to share with him. On February 13, 2014, Bristol and his union representative (Courtney Brown) met with HR business partner Delles. Bristol at that time explained that he believed his ADA leave would be retroactively applied to his unexcused absences. At this meeting, Delles explained that the FMLA leave Bristol had taken previously was mandated by law, i.e., American Water could not object to the leave once Bristol was approved. To obtain FMLA leave, an employee needs only to work the requisite number of hours in their job. Thus, he was allowed to miss numerous days of work without recourse. The ADA leave, however, was different; the requirements for approval of ADA leave are more stringent than for FMLA leave. An employer does not have to grant ADA leave, but is required to approve FMLA leave if the employee qualifies. At the meeting with Delles, Bristol advised her that he would be filing a claim against American Water with the Employee Equal Opportunity Commission. This was despite the fact that American Water had attempted to provide accommodations. Further, Bristol had never been chastised or reprimanded by American Water for applying for ADA leave or FMLA leave. In fact, American Water had prompted Bristol to apply for ADA when his FMLA leave was exhausted. All the while, Bristol continued to be absent from work in excess of his available leave. Bristol had been notified on June 12, 2013, that he was being issued a Level I verbal warning for non-attendance pursuant to American Water’s attendance policy. On that same day, he was notified that he was being issued a Level II written warning for non-attendance due to a second occurrence. On November 15, 2013, he was given a Level III final written warning for non-attendance. A Level I verbal warning is issued when an employee uses up his sick leave and annual leave and then misses between one hour and one full day of work, i.e., an unexcused absence. The warning would remain “active” in an employee’s file for up to six months. A Level II written warning is issued when the employee has a second unexcused absence while the verbal warning was still active. The Level II warning would remain active for up to 12 months. A Level III final warning is issued when there is a third unexcused absence while the Level II warning was still active. If there is a fourth unexcused absence, the employee’s contract of employment will be terminated. American Water followed its progressive discipline policy regarding Bristol’s absences. On February 24, 2014, Bristol was notified by American Water that his employment was being terminated. The stated reason for the termination of employment was excessive absences. The letter of notification indicated absences of over one hour on 34 additional days following his final written warning. Bristol refused to accept the accommodations suggested by American Water. He maintained that the only way he could continue working was to be allowed to take intermittent leave whenever he felt the need. American Water could not agree to that plan because it had a defined need for customer service representatives to be available on the days they were scheduled, except for normal expectation of sickness or other unforeseen reasons for being absent. Otherwise, American Water would find it impossible to effectively schedule the necessary number of representatives on any given day. American Water did not offer Bristol an alternative job because, as a union member, he was in the only job covered by the union. Whether he could have withdrawn from the union was not discussed with Bristol (or addressed at final hearing). After termination of his employment at American Water, Bristol became employed as a “salad chef” at a local restaurant called Jaco’s. He works approximately seven hours each day and stands for the duration of his work shift, but he gets to walk around the kitchen area. Bristol did not say whether Jaco’s was asked to provide any accommodations for his disability. This fact, too, negatively colors Bristol’s credibility concerning his claims against American Water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that American Water Service Company, Inc., did not discriminate against Micheal D. Bristol. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application to sit for the water well contractor examination should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: On January 9, 2004, Petitioner, who resides in Baker County, Florida, filed his application with the District requesting that he be allowed to sit for the water well contractor examination. The requirements for qualification to take the examination are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-531.300. Relevant to this controversy is the requirement that an applicant present "satisfactory proof of two years experience in the water well construction business." This requirement is normally met by the applicant providing a list of at least ten water well jobs he has completed during a consecutive 24-month period (together with their locations, major use, and approximate depth and diameter), the name and address of the owner of the well, and the approximate date the activity took place. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-531.300(6)(a). If the work has been completed in Florida, the applicant is also required to submit copies of completion reports for each of the ten wells. Id. Completion reports are filed by the contractor with the District within thirty days after the work is completed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-3.411. Finally, the applicant must submit letters from three persons attesting to the length of time the applicant has been working in the water well construction business as a major activity. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-531.600(6)(a). Alternatively, an applicant may present "satisfactory proof of equivalent experience," which may be accepted by the District "on a individual basis." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 531.300(6)(b). While this option has rarely, if ever, been used by any applicant, at hearing the District suggested that this provision would allow an applicant to submit other credible documentary evidence, such as affidavits, attesting to the applicant's equivalent experience. Mr. Julian C. Varnes, Jr., a District water resource representative III, is in charge of reviewing water well contractor applications in four northeast Florida counties, including Baker County. Mr. Varnes reviewed Petitioner's application and concluded that he had failed to submit proof of two years' experience in the water well contracting business or satisfactory proof of equivalent experience, as required by the rule. In this case, Petitioner submitted ten completion reports with his application, but none of the reports indicated that he had been involved on those projects, and Petitioner acknowledged at hearing that he could not recall if he was even present on the job site. This is probably because the reports related to jobs performed between November 10, 1982, and July 31, 1985, by his father, a licensed water well contractor, when Petitioner was less than fifteen years old. In addition, the reports submitted by Petitioner covered work performed over a 32-month period, rather than over a 24-month period, as required by the rule, and some of the reports did not have the complete address of the location of the well. By letter dated February 4, 2004, the District advised Petitioner that his application was deficient because he had failed to submit the information required in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-531.300(1)(b) and (6) relative to experience. The letter advised Petitioner that he must submit an "acceptable list of ten wells together with their completion reports, for wells that [he had] constructed, repaired, or abandoned, with completion dates distributed over a consecutive 24-month time period." Further telephonic discussions between Petitioner and District personnel concerning the request for additional information occurred on March 25 and 29, 2004, but they did not resolve the District's concerns. On June 15, 2004, the District staff again notified Petitioner in writing that he must submit the requested information within 30 days or his application would be denied. When no response was received from Petitioner, on July 27, 2004, the staff issued a Technical Staff Report recommending that the application be denied because of Petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 531.300(1)(b) and (6). On August 23, 2004, a Notice of Staff Intent to Recommend Denial of Water Well Contractor Application No. 7300 and Notice of Rights was issued by the District. Petitioner's request for a hearing was then filed. After his first request for a hearing was dismissed, on November 18, 2004, Petitioner filed an amended request for a hearing. In that request, he alleged that the District was "not capable of locating completion reports filed by [Petitioner] and/or his father"; that the experience of he and his father was well known to two District staffers; that he had purchased a well drilling company from another individual and operated under the seller's license for over a year; that he is entitled to licensure because he has satisfactory equivalent experience; and that his father has paid all outstanding fines previously imposed by the District. As relief, Petitioner has requested that he be allowed to take the contractor's examination. At hearing, Petitioner explained that his father was in the water well contracting business for twenty years, and that beginning in 1983, when he was thirteen years old, he had helped his father on "hundreds of jobs" until his father's retirement in 1994. However, Petitioner cannot recall the names and addresses of customers who were serviced by his father's business, which is necessary in order for the District to retrieve completion reports presumably filed by his father. Because of the large number of completion reports filed by contractors throughout its multi-county jurisdiction, in order to retrieve one, the District must have the following information: the year the job was completed, the county in which the job was performed, and the address (township and range) of the well's owner. Petitioner is unable to provide this information.1 In addition, Petitioner stated that he had purchased a water well contractor's business (from Tim Johnson) shortly after his father retired in 1994 and that he operated the business under Mr. Johnson's license for a little more than a year. Although Petitioner produced no documentation concerning jobs he may have performed under Mr. Johnson's license, even if he had, that work would still constitute less than 24 consecutive months of experience, as required by the rule. Petitioner further asserted that Mr. Varnes, who oversees the water well contractors in Baker County, personally "knows" that he is an experienced well driller (having gained such experience through working for his father for many years) and that he possesses the skills necessary to take the examination. However, Mr. Varnes did not agree with this assertion. Finally, Petitioner asked that he be allowed to take the examination, which would be the best indicator of whether he possesses the necessary knowledge to be a contractor. He also pointed out that each completed project must be inspected by a District employee, and that such inspections would verify and ensure that his work is satisfactory. However, the rules require that before the examination can be taken, certain requirements must be met. Petitioner has not satisfied those requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order denying Petitioner's application to sit for the water well contractor examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2005.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether sufficient grounds exists for the Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, to terminate Respondent, Steve Toler, Jr.'s employment with the Authority because of the matters alleged in the Letter of Termination dated February 15, 1995.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Authority, was a governmental agency with membership held by Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco Counties and the cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. It is charged with the responsibility of providing water resource management for its members. In November, 1994, the Respondent, Steve Toler, Jr., then employed for 9 1/2 years by the Authority as a maintenance technician, was under the supervision of Ben Nevel, lead supervisor for his crew and Harry Vogel, the facilities maintenance supervisor at Cypress Creek pump station. Just before Thanksgiving that year, his crew was given the responsibility of removing certain supposedly above ground aluminum pipe belonging to Pinellas County and replacing it with buried PVC pipe on the county's well field on Cross Bar Ranch, owned by Pinellas County. On the last day of the project Respondent was working by himself at the job site doing those things necessary to complete the project. This included removing three aluminum pipes and replacing them with three PVC pipes. In the course of the removal of the aluminum pipe, two pipes were damaged by Respondent because they were buried and he could not see them. When Respondent attempted to bury the three pieces of PVC pipe, he found that he needed some pipe lubricant in order to get them joined and called the pump station to have someone bring it. The lubricant was brought to the site by Mr. Vogel about noon, and the two men talked about the project. According to Mr. Vogel, Respondent made no mention of any damaged pipe nor did Vogel see any damaged pipe while he was at the site. Vogel adamantly denies that he ever, either that day or at any other time, told Respondent that he could throw away damaged pipe. The instructions that Vogel had left with Mr. Nevel for transmittal to the crew was that the removed pipe was to be placed in storage at the north end of the ranch because it belonged to Pinellas County, not to the Authority, and even if the pipe was damaged, the ends might be used for fittings. It is not clear whether Respondent knew the pipe belonged to the county or to the cattle company which had originally owned the ranch. Notwithstanding, Respondent took the two damaged pipes back to the Cypress Creek pumping station where, without speaking to anyone about what he proposed to do, he placed them in the trash dumpster for disposal. The following day, after completing his day's work, Respondent noted that the pipe was still in the dumpster and, without seeking approval from anyone, removed it from the dumpster, placed it in his truck, and that same day, sold it to All American Metal Recycling in Land O'Lakes, Florida, for $29.00 which he kept for his personal use. He collects scrap aluminum and copper in order to sell them. Respondent admits that as an Authority employee, he did not have the authority to take property owned by the Authority or its members for his own use. Ordinarily, he admits, the disposal of Authority-owned property had to be approved. The authority for approval, as contained in the agency's standard operating procedure for disposal of Authority assets, dated February 14, 1994, was the Cypress Creek storekeeper. Though it is not written, the Authority has a policy against employees taking material out of the dumpsters at the Cypress Creek facility. It was Toler's understanding, however, that old, unusable pieces of piping and wood could be thrown away, but equipment and property that had value had to be turned into Mr. Rooney, the storekeeper, who would evaluate it for disposal or repair. At no time did Respondent have the authority to make that determination. Mr. Toler admits he was aware of the Authority's policy on the disposal of property as noted in the February 14 SOP, as it had been outlined at no lees than two safety meetings he had attended. He understood that if he threw property away without authority, he could be fired. In fact, he admits, Mr. Vogel had so advised him of that. In the instant case, however, he contends, Mr. Vogel told him on the last day of the project in issue, in response to his inquiry, that he should throw the damaged pipe away. This was, as stated earlier, categorically denied by Mr. Vogel. Respondent also indicates that on the second day of the project, pipe being removed was damaged. That pipe was taken to the north pasture and stacked near other, undamaged pipe. The total amount of aluminum pipe removed in this project consisted of approximate one hundred twenty foot long "sticks". Respondent well knew he could not take and sell the stacked pipe, even that which was damaged. Respondent claims that no one saw him put the damaged pipe into the dumpster. He did not think about the opportunity to salvage the pipe when Mr. Vogel told him to throw it away or even when he brought it back and threw it into the dumpster. It was not until the next day when, after work, he saw the pipe still in the dumpster, that it occurred to him to take it, he claims. Respondent admits he has taken scrap metal and sold it before and claims others have done so, too. When he put this pipe in the dumpster he realized that others might take it, so he was somewhat surprised when it was still there the next day. Respondent also admits he did not tell Mr. Vogel how he had disposed of the pipe at first. Once the situation came under investigation, however, as a result of an inquiry regarding missing pipe from the Cross Bar Ranch project, he did so. He admits that sometime after the day he took and sold the pipe as scrap, but before the investigation was commenced, Mr. Vogel asked him what he had done with the pipe, and Respondent replied he had thrown it away. A few days later, in Vogel's office, when the investigation had begun, Mr. Vogel again asked Respondent what he had done with the pipe, and this time Respondent admitted to scrapping it. In the course of the investigation, Respondent spoke with Mr. Capp, a Cypress Creek engineer, about the allegation. In that conversation, held in Mr. Capp's office while no one else was present, Respondent admitted selling the broken pipe for scrap and advised that Mr. Vogel had told him to throw it away. At that time, he offered to replace the pipe, but his offer was not accepted. Some time later, and prior to the pre-disciplinary hearing, he was given a letter by Mr. Capp placing him on administrative leave pending investigation. At that time, Mr. Capp denied knowing what was in the letter. On February 8, 1995 a pre-disciplinary hearing was held with Respondent and counsel present at which time Respondent was given an opportunity to tell his side of the story. At that time, he did not mention any other individuals who had taken scrap from the dumpster, nor had he ever told Mr. Vogel, Mr. Capp or Mr. Kennedy about that. He claims he does not know of any cases where either Mr. Capp or Mr. Kennedy knew of others taking scrap but not being disciplined. However, Respondent is of the opinion Mr. Vogel knows what is going on but he cannot be sure. As was stated previously, Respondent has taken scrap from the dumpster before and claims Mr. Vogel knew it. Vogel, predictably, denies that. Some time after the pre-disciplinary hearing, after Kennedy received the information regarding the incident as determined therein, he discharged Respondent for several violations of the Authority's personnel rules. These included the removal and sale of the scrap pipe owned by Pinellas County, committing a breach of public trust, and committing a breach of member government trust which was deleterious to the Authority in that, in Kennedy's opinion, it undermined the public's faith and confidence in the Authority's public service responsibilities. Kennedy asserts that the relationship between the Authority and its member governments requires that each cooperate with the other in the mission to supply water to the public. Trust and confidence are essential elements of that relationship. Employees of the Authority and its member governments frequently are in and out of each others' facilities. If a member government loses trust in an Authority employee, the Authority's ability to efficiently perform its function would be hampered. This is a reasonable and supportable position and it is so found. In the past, the Authority has discharged employees for violating employee rules which reflect adversely on Authority integrity. One was discharged for the improper use of an Authority vehicle, and others have been discharged for violations of the property disposal policy. It would appear that Mr. Toler has not been treated differently than any others who were found to have violated similar policies. Since February, 1944, when the Authority adopted its policy regarding disposal of property, three employees, including Respondent, have removed materials from the dumpster at the Cypress Creek facility for their own use. Among these are Mr. Nevel who admits to taking electric wire and three discarded printers. Nothing taken by the others included aluminum pipe, however. Capp, Kennedy and Vogel all deny knowing that employees were taking scrap. Respondent cannot say that any of them did know. Consistent with that philosophy, Mr. Kennedy indicates he would have discharged Respondent for placing the scrap in the dumpster whether or not he sold it. By the same token, he would have discharged Respondent had he taken and sold the pipe, even if he had not placed it in the dumpster. Another incident arose in June, 1995, just prior to the hearing, involving the potential disposal of scrap pipe. Mr. Kennedy learned that a stick of aluminum pipe was in the dumpster at the Cypress Creek facility. The pipe, owned by the Authority, had been placed there by Mr. Rooney, the storekeeper, after Mr. Nevel used the ends to retrofit some piping at the Cross Bar Ranch. When this was discovered, Mr. Kennedy directed the pipe be recovered and held for possible future use or sale. Whereas Respondent contends this action was an attempt at a cover-up, it is more likely the result of an unintentional discard of potentially useful pipe.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the East Coast Regional Water Supply Authority deny Respondent's Petition for Relief and Enter a Final Order discharging him effective February 15, 1995. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 4. Accepted but irrelevant to any disputed issue of fact. Accepted. - 8. Accepted. 9. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. Accepted. 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's counsel has identified his Proposed Findings of Fact by letter rather than number. For the sake of consistency in this Order they will be re- identified herein with numbers. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue of fact. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue of fact. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not a proper Finding of Fact but more a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Hearing, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A. 109 North brush Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Michael S. Edenfield, Esquire Battle & Edenfield, P.A. 206 Mason Street Brandon, Florida 33511 General Manager West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Donald D. Conn General Counsel West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing; the following facts relevant to the issue presented for determination are found: The prime complaint heard from petitioner's customers who testified at the hearing was the objectionable odor of the water received in their homes. The water was described as smelling like chlorine or like sewer, swamp or sulphur water. Such an objectionable odor affects the water's taste, and several customers testified that they were compelled to use filters to make the water bearable to drink. Another witness testified that the water tasted like quinine. Other complaints regarding the quality of water provided by petitioner to its customers included the presence of debris, such as sand, silt or dirt, in the water, the staining of white sinks by the water and inadequate water pressure. Complaints with regard to the service provided by petitioner to its customers were also voiced. These complaints included interruptions in water service without prior notice, the presence of air in the water lines and the necessity of making long-distance telephone calls to Orlando when inquiring about their bills. One customer testified that even though he had paid for a temporary disconnection of his water when he was away from his residence, he was still billed a minimum charge for service. Several customers testified that petitioner's office personnel failed to timely or adequately respond to their complaints or inquiries regarding their bills. Charles Sweat, the vice president of operations for petitioner's fifty- one systems in eight counties, visits each of the systems at least once a month. At the time that petitioner took over the operation of the Intercession City water system in 1977, the system was under citation by the Department of Environmental Regulation for inadequate chlorination of the water. The Department of Environmental Regulation does have a minimum requirement as to the amount of chlorine which must be added to the water. Petitioner corrected this deficiency and the citation was removed. Neither of the two water systems involved in this proceeding - Intercession City and Tropical Park - are presently under citation by any state or local regulatory agency. Analyses of monthly laboratory samples of water from the Intercession City and the Tropical Park systems indicate that the water quality will meet the Department of Environmental Regulation's secondary drinking water standards which went into effect on January 13, 1981. Petitioner now provides a toll-free telephone number which Osceola County customers may use to call Orlando. Notice of this toll-free number was included in the water bills sent to customers in September or October of 1980. A log is maintained by petitioner of all interruptions of water service. On one occasion occurring on March 3, 1980, there was a water outage. The outage was caused by low temperatures freezing the pressure switch at a time when it was at a high pressure level. When there was no pressure, the switch, being frozen, was incapable of sending an on-signal to the pump. It was necessary for petitioner to use torches to thaw out the pipes to make the system work properly. Cold weather sufficient to cause such an effect rarely occurs in Florida. On January 16, 1981, there was an interruption in service caused by the county cutting a water line. Another interruption of service occurred on January 18, 1981. This was caused by the malfunction of an air release valve which releases excess air from the pressure tank. Air was eventually caused to go into the distribution system and consequently into the homes of the customers. Petitioner's personnel have been instructed to watch this type of situation more carefully and more often. Petitioner's vice president of operations was not aware of recent complaints from customers concerning air problems, but testified that he would immediately and personally follow up on the problem.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the quality of water service provided by petitioner to its customers in Osceola County be found to be satisfactory and that no adverse consequences be imposed upon the petitioner in its application for a rate increase as a result of the quality of its service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: R.M.C. Rose Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards Suite 103, 1020 Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve Public Counsel Room 4 - Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Robert Christ Legal Department Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(c) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA09-GM-231 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned designated Agency Clerk, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this ay of June, 2009. U.S. Mail: The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Robert Quintin Williams Williams, Smith & Summers 380 West Alfred Street Tavares, Florida 32778-3206 Hand Delivery Matthew Davis, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Agency Clerk LOB ge Viren Ford
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Several years prior to1978, petitioner General Development Corporation (GDC) applied to the DER for a dredge and fill permit to remove a plug of land between the Ocean Breeze Waterway and the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. During the course of negotiations for this permit, it was discovered that the North Port St. Lucie Sewage Treatment Plant, owned and operated by General Development Utilities, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the petitioner, was operating without a permit from the DER and discharging effluent into a ditch which flowed into the Ocean Breeze Waterway. In March of 1978, a temporary operating permit was issued for the sewage treatment plant. In July of 1978, petitioner received from the DER Permit No. 253.123- 1031 to dredge an area approximately 800 feet in length, 90 feet in width and 6 feet in depth in order to connect the Ocean Breeze/Sagamore Waterways to the dead end oxbow of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. The permit application was given special consideration pursuant to Rule 17-4.28(7), Florida Administrative Code. The purpose for obtaining the permit was to create direct navigable access to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River from thee Ocean Breeze Waterway. The Ocean Breeze Waterway was and is currently connected to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River by a narrow, shallow, meandering creek and lake system. However, there is not a large enough opening to allow the type of navigable access desired by the petitioner for the benefit of 118 lots plotted along the Ocean Breeze and Sagamore Waterways. Among the seven particular or special conditions attached to the dredge and fill permit issued to petitioner was that the earthen plug not be removed until such time as a permanent operational permit was issued for the sewage treatment plant owned and operated by General Development Utilities, Inc. More specifically, petitioner agreed to the following special conditions to the issuance of the dredge and fill permit: "(7) The applicant is aware that the GDC Utilities' sewage plant is providing an unknown quantity of discharge into Ocean Breeze Waterway and that this discharge may be a source of pollution to the receiving body of water unless affirmative steps are taken by the Utilities. The sewage treatment plant is currently operating under a Temporary Operating Permit (TP56-4601). In no case shall the plug at Cove Waterway be removed before an Operation Permit for the STP has been issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation." At time of issuance of the dredge and fill permit, DER personnel considered the quoted special condition number 7 to an integral part of the permit in terms of water quality assurances. General Development Utilities, Inc. has not been able to obtain a permanent operational permit from the DER for its sewage treatment plant which discharges into a ditch that flows into the Ocean Breeze Waterway. Therefore, particular condition number 7 has not been satisfied and petitioner has been unable to proceed with the dredging or removing of the plug under the permit. As a result of the delays in removal of the plug, petitioner has had to repurchase some 41 of the 118 plotted lots. The sewage treatment plant was and is still operating under a temporary permit. General Development Utilities, Inc. has requested a permanent operational permit for the sewage treatment plant and DER has issued a letter of intent to deny such a permit. As a result, General Development Utilities has petitioned DER for site specific alternative criteria pursuant to Rule 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code. This matter is the subject of a separate proceeding currently being held in abeyance pending a determination of alternative criteria. General Development Utilities, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case No. 81-177. In September of 1980, petitioner sent a letter to DER requesting that special condition number seven be removed from its dredge and fill Permit No. 253.123-1031. It was intended that this request be considered as a minor modification to the dredge and fill permit. In response, DER's Chief of the Bureau of Permitting, Suzanne P. Walker, informed petitioner by letter dated October 15, 1980, that it was the staff's initial reaction, after a review of the original dredge and fill permit file, that the requirement that the sewage treatment plant obtain a permanent operational permit prior to dredging remain as a condition of the dredge and fill permit. Petitioner was informed that if it wished to pursue the matter further, the project must be reevaluated as a major modification to the dredge and fill permit. A major modification to a permit requires a new permit application and fee and is treated and processed as an initial application for a permit, with the applicant being required to provide reasonable assurances that the water quality standards will not be violated. Upon request for a minor modification, DER simply reviews the file and determines whether the request is obviously environmentally insignificant. After receipt of the letter from Mrs. Walker, petitioner supplied DER with additional water quality data. Based upon this additional data, discussions with DER staff who had been involved with the initial dredge and fill permit and the sewage treatment plant permit, and two days of sampling data collected by DER, DER determined that particular condition number seven was an integral part of the affirmative reasonable water quality assurance provided and should remain a condition of the permit. This determination was communicated to petitioner by letter dated January 7, 1981. The sewage treatment plant discharges treated effluent into a drainage ditch known as C-108. Effluent from the plant first goes into holding or retention ponds. Under its current flow, it takes about forty days for the effluent to be discharged from the plant to C-108 and the Ocean Breeze Waterway. C-108 flows into the Ocean Breeze Waterway, an artificial waterway which is presently connected to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River by a narrow, shallow meandering creek and lake system. The sewage treatment plant currently operates at 300,000 gallons per day but has an authorized capacity to operate at two million gallons per day. It currently contributes approximately two percent of the total daily flow to C-108. The Ocean Breeze Waterway and C-108, independent of the sewage treatment plant, drain approximately 4,000 square acres and produce about 35 percent of the water that will flow into the North Fork. The North Fork is tidal, with four one foot tides per day. The tidal action comprises almost 63 percent of the moving water. At a two million gallons per day discharge, the wastewater plant would be contributing about 12 percent of the water that would be going into the North Fork from the Ocean Breeze Waterway system. In comparison with two adjacent drainage systems, the Ocean Breeze system contributes only about three percent of the fresh water which flows into the North Fork. The dissolved oxygen levels of C-108 are chacteristically below the state standard of five milligrams per liter, primarily due to the seepage of ground water into the canal. Due to man-made alterations and to natural phenomena, the North Fork's dissolved oxygen levels also characteristically fall below state standards. The dissolved oxygen level of the Ocean Breeze Waterway is characteristically above state standards. Higher levels of dissolved oxygen coming from the sewage treatment plant improves the dissolved oxygen levels of the existing system. High levels of nitrogen, phosphate and chlorophyll have been found near the point of discharge. The quality of water in the North Fork is better than in the Ocean Breeze Waterway. It was the opinion of petitioner's experts that no change in dissolved oxygen levels would occur in the Ocean Breeze Waterway or the North Fork if the plug of land between these water bodies were removed. Petitioner's witnesses also opined that the Ocean Breeze/C-108 system was not a source of nutrient enrichment to the North Fork, and that the present creek system provided no water quality benefits in the form of nutrient uptake for the North Fork. It was estimated that, if the plug of land were removed pursuant to the permit, a pollutant placed at the upper end of the Ocean Breeze Waterway would be diluted by 98 percent in 26 hours in lieu of the present 39 hours due to increased flushing. These opinions were based upon analyses by petitioner's witnesses of various samplings and data regarding dissolved oxygen, nutrients and phytoplankton. The respondent's witnesses felt that the poor water quality in the Ocean Breeze Waterway was attributable in large part to the sewage treatment plant discharge and, if the plug of land were removed, the water quality problems would be moved to the North Fork and the St. Lucie River. It was felt that the present creek and lake system -- the narrow circuitous connection presently existing between the canal and the river -- reduces the nutrients which otherwise would flow into the river. These conclusions were based upon DER's own survey, a review of the dredge and fill permit file and a review of the additional data supplied by the petitioner General Development Corporation. No data regarding the water quality of the effluent from the sewage treatment plant was submitted by the petitioner at the time of DER's review of the original application for the dredge and fill permit.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the request of General Development Corporation to modify Permit Number 253.123-1031 by removing particular condition number seven be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Valerie Fravel Corporate Counsel General Development Corp. 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami Florida 33131 Alfred J. Malefatto Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Victoria Tschinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based on the uncontested facts alleged in Petitioner's Motion For Summary Recommended Order and from the Final Orders issued in Bayshore Homeowners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation and Grove Isle, Inc., Case Nos. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354. On December 29, 1980 DER entered a Final Order on the application of Petitioner for a 90 slip marina in Biscayne Bay, Florida. The Order denied the permit because Grove Isle had not demonstrated that the project is "affirmatively in the public interest" and because the applicant had not demonstrated that it "can meet ambient water quality standards within the project area itself." In the Recommended Order on Remand the Hearing Officer had defined "existing ambient waters" to be the area in the cove between Grove Isle and the Miami mainland. The Final Order rejected that concept and held if any waters others than those contained within the immediate project site were to be considered as ambient, Petitioner must request a mixing zone as part of its application. See Section 17-4.242, (1)(a)2.b. and Section 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code. By a letter received at the Department of Environmental Regulation on May 20, 1981, Grove Isle reapplied for the boat dock permit which was the subject of the foregoing proceedings. Petitioner's application, which was in the form of a letter from counsel, stated: May 18, 1981 Mr. Larry O'Donnell Department of Environmental Regulation Post Office Box 3858 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 RE: GROVE ISLE - Application for Boat Dock Dear Mr. O'Donnell: On behalf of Grove Isle, LTD, I am reapplying for the boat dock permit previously applied for by Grove Isle, LTD. Please consider this a short-form application. Your office designated a previous file number, DF 13-7956, to this matter. In conjunction with that application I am applying for a mixing zone, pursuant to Rule 17-4.244, for both the construction and operation of this marina. Please refer to your file on the previous application and incorporate said documents into this reapplication. I am submitting with this application: A scale drawing (one inch = 100') of the proposed facility. (which you have) A certified survey of the proposed mixing zone. (one inch = 100') An application fee of $20.00 A copy of the Final Order issued by Jacob D. Varn, former secretary of DER, on the previous application. A copy of the Notice of Intent previously issued for this project, dated 9/23/79. (which you have) As you will note from reading Mr. Varn's Final Order, he concluded that issuance of this permit was not appropriate inasmuch as the applicant had not applied for nor received a designated mixing zone. We do not necessarily agree with this order and have, in fact, appealed this decision to the First District Court of Appeal. However, in an attempt to keep this matter from becoming any more complicated, we have decided to reapply for the permit and to apply for a mixing zone. We do not concede that a mixing zone should be required for this project or that the facility will result in the release of any pollutants so as to significantly degrade ambient water quality. However, should this project, through its construction or operation, result in the release of any pollutants, I believe they would be limited to: Bottom sediments placed in suspension by the installation of the concrete piles used to support the docking facility during construction; Minimal amounts of oil and grease which may escape from the various vessels moored to the docks; The constituants of anti-fouling paint which may be applied to the hulls of the various vessels moored at the docks. Turbidity will be controlled by the use of curtains during construction. If lowered water quality occurs at all in this project it would only occur within the designated mixing zone, as per Rule 17-4.242 (2)(b) F.A.C. Please advise me should additional information be needed to process this re-application. Yours truly, /s/ KENNETH G. OERTEL On June 19, 1981, DER sent a "completeness summary letter" to Petitioner which requested the following information: Your project is in Outstanding Florida Waters. Please provide the following items demonstrating compliance with Section 17-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Please demonstrate that this project is clearly in the public interest and that this project will not result in the degradation of ambient water quality beyond the 30 day construction period. Petitioner responded by letter dated June 22, 1981 and which was received at DER on June 25, 1981. Petitioner said in pertinent part: Dear Mr. Duke: If you would check your previous file no. DF-13-7956, I believe you will find all the information you have requested has previously been provided to your office either in that permit file or through the administrative hearings held in pursuit of this application. I think it would be more fruitful if you would communicate with Al Clark, Attorney for DER, with regard to the status of this application. As I do not wish to speak on behalf of Mr. Clark, I believe you should confirm the status of this application with him, particularly in view of our attempt to comply with Secretary Varn's Final Order which suggests the application for this mixing zone. The record reflects no further correspondence between the parties until September 23, 1981 when the Department entered a Final Order Denying Application for Permit. The Order provided that: This project was reviewed previously (DF 13-7956) and was determined not to be clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. No further evidence upon resubmittal, has been provided to clearly demonstrate that this project is in the public interest. Furthermore, the requested mixing zone exceeds that allowable pursuant to Section 17-4.244, F.A.C. and can be applied only during the construction period, pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. During the operation of this facility ambient water quality is expected to be degraded in violation of Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. This order was entered ninety-one days after DER received Petitioner's June 22, 1981 letter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the permit applied for by Petitioner, Grove Isle, Ltd. on May 20, 1981 subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Intent To Issue Permit dated October 23, 1979 which is a part of the record in Bayshore Homeowners Association et al., v. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and Grove Isle, Inc., Case Nos. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1982.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Robert J. Simmons, Jr. (Simmons), should be issued: an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) under Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Titles 62 and 40E, Florida Administrative Code; and a Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-21, Florida Administrative Code. (All citations to Florida Statutes refer to the 2000 codification; all Florida Administrative Code citations are to the current version.)
Findings Of Fact The Applicant Respondent, Robert Simmons, Jr. (Simmons), is the applicant for: a consent of use of sovereign submerged lands owned by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund; and an ERP to construct a private, single-family, residential dock for access to Little Munyon Island and to fill jurisdictional wetlands on the island in order to construct a residence on the island. Simmons has offered to purchase Little Munyon Island and the 16 acres of privately-owned, mostly submerged land surrounding it for $2.6 million. Under the contract of purchase, Simmons is required to close by April 2, 2002. If the contract to purchase closes, Simmons plans to construct an 8,000 to 10,000 square-foot residence, with swimming pool, on Little Munyon Island. He estimates that the residence, once built, will be worth $12 million to $15 million. Little Munyon Island. Little Munyon Island is a 1 1/2 acre, undeveloped and unbridged island located in the Lake Worth Lagoon, which has been designated Class III waters of the state. Little Munyon Island is a natural island, one of only three in the Lake Worth Lagoon. Anasthasia rock atop the Pleistocene formation comes to the surface at the site. The island has been enlarged over the years by placement of spoil from dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) to the west of the island. In addition, due to erosion on the west and accretion on the east, the island has shifted to the east. Now the eastern edge of the accreted eastern side actually is outside the 16 acres described by the deed Simmons seeks to have conveyed to him. Little Munyon Island is located just south of the John D. MacArthur State Park and Big Munyon Island. The waters in the Park have been designated as Class II, or Outstanding Florida Waters under Florida Administrative Code Rule (Rule) 62-302.700(2)(b). The boundary of the Park is approximately 1,100 feet north of Little Munyon Island. The eastern boundary of the ICW right-of-way is located about 220 feet west of Little Munyon Island; the centerline of the ICW is about 550 feet west of the island. Singer Island is an Atlantic Ocean barrier island approximately half a mile east of Little Munyon Island. The evidence was that less of Little Munyon Island is inundated by high tides than used to be. As a result, more of the island's vegetation was native in the past. Perhaps due to the deposit of spoil material, relatively little of the island is inundated any more. As a result, exotic vegetation such as Australian pine, Brazilian pepper, and seaside mahoe has invaded and comprises about 35 percent of the island's vegetation. The native vegetation includes red, black and white mangroves, buttonwood, and cabbage palms. Although it is private property, Little Munyon Island is currently being used quite extensively by the public, without authorization from the owner. Boaters frequent the island, leaving trash and other debris behind. Visitors to the island have chopped down native vegetation, such as mangroves, in order to build campfires on the island. Boaters visiting the island for recreational activities often ground their boats around the island. Grounding and extricating boats often causes the boats' propellers to dredge up seagrasses and dig holes in seagrass beds. The Lake Worth Lagoon. The Lake Worth Lagoon is a saltwater estuary. It stretches about 21 miles south from PGA Boulevard and varies in width from about 1 to 1 1/2 miles. The Lagoon is tidally influenced twice per day through the Lake Worth Inlet, which is located about 2-3 miles south of Little Munyon Island. The Inlet connects the Lagoon with the Atlantic Ocean. There is a tidal range of 2.8 to 2.9 feet between mean high and mean low tides in the vicinity of the island. Much of the historical extent of the Lagoon has been filled, and it is located in the most urbanized portion of Palm Beach County. From 1940 to 1975, the Lagoon lost more than 87 percent of its mangroves due to shoreline development. Little Munyon Island is located roughly in the middle of a large bay in the northern part of the Lagoon, which has not been filled or bulkheaded. This bay is one of the few remaining natural areas of the Lake Worth Lagoon. The Earman River, also known as the C-17 canal, discharges into the Lake Worth Lagoon west and a little north from Little Munyon Island to the west of the ICW. The part of the Lake Worth Lagoon around Little Munyon Island is vegetated with very high quality seagrasses, including Cuban Shoal Grass (Halodule wrightii), Turtle Grass (Thalassia testudinum), Manatee Grass (Syringodium filiforme), Paddle Grass (Halophila decipiens), and Johnson Grass (Halophila johnsonii). Johnson Grass is a federally listed threatened species of seagrass, but it tolerates a range of water quality and bottom sediments and is relatively abundant in the Lake Worth Lagoon. Five of the six types of seagrasses found in the Lagoon occur in the vicinity of Little Munyon Island. The area around Little Munyon Island is the best area of seagrasses in all of Palm Beach County, and it has the highest density of seagrasses. The quality of seagrasses in the area is "as good as it gets in the Lake Worth Lagoon." The tide from the Lake Worth Inlet flows north and south through the ICW. As a result, the same waters pass both Little Munyon Island and Big Munyon Island as the tide ebbs and flows. Silt and suspended particles in the water column around Little Munyon Island could be carried by the tide to the Class II waters around Big Munyon Island. There is a high degree of biological diversity in the area around Little Munyon Island. The seagrass beds and flats around Little Munyon are a breeding ground for fish and other aquatic resources. The portion of the Lake Worth Lagoon around Little Munyon has been identified as Essential Fish Habitat by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service. It is essential fish habitat for postlarval, juvenile, and adult brown and pink shrimp, red drum, and gray snapper. Seagrasses protect small fish and provide a food source for a whole ecosystem that starts with the seagrasses. Seagrasses provide a valuable source of oxygen, food, and shelter. One square meter of seagrass can generate 10 liters of oxygen per day. They may be one of the most prolific ecosystems in the world in terms of biomass production. The water quality in the Lake Worth Lagoon is improving due to stormwater regulation and reduction in the discharge of sewage effluent. This has caused the quality of seagrasses in the area to improve over the past 18 years. Seagrass recruitment has occurred around the area, and new kinds of seagrasses have colonized since 1983. It is reasonable to believe that seagrasses will continue to colonize around the island if water quality continues to improve. If conditions are right, seagrasses can spread and colonize areas where they do not now occur. The Proposed Project Initial Application In the initial application for ERP and consent of use filed on January 20, 2000, Simmons proposed to construct an L-shaped, 5,208 square foot dock made of poured concrete, 10-12 inches thick. The proposed dock's 12-foot wide access pier was to extend westward from shore for 306 feet, with a 12-foot wide terminal platform extending 140 feet to the south. The entire dock was to be elevated to 5.0' NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929). The entire dock was to be within privately-owned submerged lands, but intended mooring on the western side of the terminal platform would have been over sovereign submerged lands. Initially, the access pier was to cross the center of a sunken barge that lies approximately 240 feet off the island's western shore. In a response on March 10, 2000, to DEP's request for additional information (RAI), the footprint of the proposed dock was shifted south so that the access pier crossed just south of the sunken barge, where Simmons' seagrass consultant, CZR, said there were fewer seagrasses. This also shortened the access pier to 296 feet and reduced the overall area of the docking facility to 5,088 square feet. In addition, mooring piles to the west of the terminal platform were eliminated; as modified, four mooring piles were to be placed parallel to the terminal platform, on the eastern side. As modified, the entire dock structure and mooring area was located within the privately-owned submerged lands. The dock was specifically designed for use in construction of an 8,000 to 10,000 square-foot residence, plus swimming pool, on the island. The terminal platform was designed so that Simmons could moor barges between the terminal platform and the mooring piers and offload needed construction materials and equipment. It was contemplated that the barges would be 55 feet long by 24 feet wide and draw three and a half feet of water and that they would be maneuvered by push-boats. The dock also was designed to permanently moor a vessel 120-140 feet long drawing five and a half feet of water. Simmons intends to live with his family in the proposed new residence on Little Munyon Island. He currently owns a house on the mainland in North Palm Beach on the western side of the Lake Worth Lagoon across the ICW from Little Munyon Island. He plans to park cars and use a dock at that location and operate his boat back and forth to Little Munyon Island. This would necessitate crossing the ICW several times a day. To construct the planned residence and pool on Little Munyon Island, the application proposed construction of a retaining wall around the island, generally no more than 5 feet landward of the perimeter wetlands on the island. Approximately 28,500 square feet (0.65 acres) would be within the retaining wall. Three feet of fill would then be placed within the retaining wall to elevate the pad for the residence to about 6 feet above sea level. Filling the Island would necessitate cutting down all the vegetation inside the retaining wall and filling 0.15 acres of jurisdictional wetlands consisting of mangroves and other wetland species. In the initial application, utilities were going to be provided by directionally-drilling a forced sewer main, water line, electric, cable, phone, and natural gas line from State Road A1A on Singer Island, under sovereign submerged lands in the Lake Worth Lagoon, to Little Munyon. In concerns expressed in the RAI about resource impacts and extension of utilities to an undeveloped coastal island, Simmons deleted the subaqueous utility lines in the modification on March 10, 2000. June Modification During a low, low (spring) tide in April 2000, CZR noticed for the first time that there was a sand bar between the northern third of the sunken barge and Little Munyon Island. In June of 2000, Simmons again modified his application to shift the docking facility back north so that the access pier was aligned with the sand bar. Simmons also proposed to extend the dock out into deeper water, making the dock 376 feet long, and placing the last 33 feet of the dock and the entire terminal platform (a total of 1,230 square feet) on and over sovereign submerged lands. The terminal end of the dock was modified to be 100 feet long by 10 feet wide. The width of the access pier also reduced generally to ten feet; however, over a stretch of 70 feet of the access pier to the west of the sunken barge (where it crossed lush seagrasses), the width of permanent concrete access pier was further reduced to four feet. (Three-foot high, hinged, grated railings designed to fold down would widen the access pier to ten feet on demand. See Finding 37, infra.) These modification reduced the overall size of the docking facility to 4,240 square feet. In addition, the decking was elevated higher, to 5 feet above mean high water (MHW). The mooring piles on the east side of the terminal platform (now over lush seagrasses) were deleted. The house pad and retaining wall were not changed from the initial filing. Having dropped the idea of subaqueous utilities, Simmons proposed "self contained utilities" consisting of: Water - Well with reverse osmosis (RO) plant, as necessary, for potable water. Water for irrigation and toilets will be reused on-site treated wastewater. Drinking water will likely be bottled. Wastewater treatment - Treatment by small on-site package plant, not septic tank. Power - Solar with backup generator. No specifics or analysis of the impacts from these systems were provided, and no assurances were given that they would not pollute. The June modification also proposed mitigation for the loss of the 0.15 acres of wetlands on the island that would be filled. Simmons proposed placement of rip-rap breakwaters just landward of the existing limit of seagrass, or further landward, to provide wave and scouring protection and planting of mangrove and other species landward of the rip-rap. It was suggested that seagrasses also would propagate landward of the rip-rap. In an August 2000 response to DEP's RAI, Simmons detailed the mitigation plan. Under the plan, 350 linear feet of rip-rap breakwaters would be placed along the northwestern and southwestern shores of Little Munyon Island, and the area landward of the breakwaters would be planted with red and black mangrove and smooth cordgrass. Exotic vegetation would be removed from the mitigation areas. Under the plan, 0.31 acres of high quality wetlands would be created to mitigate for the loss of 0.15 acres of jurisdictional wetland fill. DEP Denies Application, as Modified On November 9, 2000, DEP issued a Consolidated Notice of Denial of Environmental Resource Permit and Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands. Discussion focused on impacts on seagrasses, impacts from the proposed utilities, and the mitigation plan. Although DEP noted that the size of the project was reduced from the original application, it concluded that the "dock will still have shading impacts on seagrasses, including Johnson's grass (Halophila johnsonii), a federally-listed threatened species." DEP also noted that the construction of the breakwaters could potentially impact seagrasses. Additional reasons for denial involved the utilities proposed for the uplands. DEP wrote: "The proposed utilities (RO plant, package plant) have a potential for impacts to the Lake Worth Lagoon (Class III Waters) through both a potential discharge and from long-term degradation. Also, no details on the use (short-term or permanent residency) or maintenance of the utilities was provided, both of which could affect how well the utilities function and whether they could affect water quality or habitat." DEP also noted that the proposed mitigation "does not create wetlands. It replaces 0.31 acres of submerged and intertidal habitat with 0.31 acres of mangroves and cordgrass habitat." It was also mentioned that anticipated trimming of mangroves would further reduce the value of mitigation. DEP concluded that Simmons had "not provided reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering the direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, will comply with Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and the rules adopted thereunder." DEP specifically concluded the proposal did not meet the balancing criteria set forth in Section 373.414, Florida Statutes, and Rules 62-330, 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Third Modification and DEP Intent to Issue Simmons and his lawyer and consultant met with DEP staff in November of 2000. A site visit was made on December 8, 2000. After the meeting and site visit, Simmons proposed to further modify the project in several respects. The portion of the dock that was previously reduced to 4 feet in width was proposed to be constructed with a grated deck. The dock was elevated from 5.0 feet above MHW to 5.25 feet above MHW measured at the top of the deck. The design of the rest of the dock remained the same. No changes were proposed to the retaining wall or filling of wetlands. As for utilities, Simmons proposed the "Little Munyon Island Power and Sewerage Plan" This plan represented that 90 percent of the complex's power would be provided by solar energy, producing approximately 72 kilowatts (kW) of electricity. The plan also stated: "Water treatment both for drinking and waste waters will be processed through Atlantis Water treatment Auto Flash systems. This approach will use waste heat to evaporate and clean the water. This process will return used waters to potable with no more than 5 percent effluent. Any effluent will be secured and containerized and periodically (2xs per year) removed from the island." An "auto-flash" system creates distilled potable water using waste heat to evaporate all water from the effluent. The new Little Munyon Island Power and Sewerage Plan did not mention the use of irrigation waters on Little Munyon Island. DEP's staff reviewer understood from the new plan that there would be no wastewater irrigation on Little Munyon Island and that all waste would be processed by distillation, i.e., potable water. As for the mitigation plan, the two previously- proposed rip-rap breakwaters were modified to reduce their footprints, and the southern breakwater was moved somewhat landward at the southern end to avoid seagrasses. A third breakwater was added to the north side of the island. This increased the amount of mitigation area from 0.31 to 0.36 acres. In addition, Simmons submitted a revised mitigation plan to plant mangroves and spartina behind the breakwaters. Simmons also offered to record a conservation easement on the 16 acres of privately-owned submerged lands surrounding Little Munyon Island. DEP issued a Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit and Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands on March 12, 2001. In recommending this action, DEP's staff reviewer understood that there would be no discharge whatsoever on the island under the "Little Munyon Island Power and Sewerage Plan," and that all wastewater would be recycled and reused. Specific Condition (18) stated: "Power and wastewater service for the island shall be provided as described in the attached 'Little Munyon Island power and sewerage plan'. No discharge of effluent is authorized on the island." DEP's staff reviewer understood the permit to mean that "water, the material that comes out . . . of the other end of the waste water system" would not be discharged on the island. If DEP's staff reviewer knew Simmons was planning to use another system to treat wastewater or was planning to discharge reuse water on the island, it "would have been a concern," and he "would have questions about what that involved." He agreed that "spray irrigation would have been a concern" and would have raised issues related to the level of treatment, water quality and quantity and runoff from the upland part of the island into the waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon. The main concern would have been nutrients. In granting the revised application, DEP reversed its previous conclusions that Simmons had not complied with applicable statutory and rule criteria, and specifically found that "the Department has determined, pursuant to Section 380.0651(3)(e), F.S., that the facility is located so that it will not adversely impact Outstanding Florida Waters or Class III waters, and will not contribute to boat traffic in a manner that will adversely impact the manatee." The Challengers The proposed project is opposed by Petitioner, Singer Island Civic Association, Inc. (SICA), and by Intervenor, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. (Friends). SICA and Friends are both Florida corporations. SICA commenced this proceeding by filing a verified Petition for Administrative Hearing. Friends filed a verified Petition to Intervene. It was stipulated that SICA and Friends have standing as Florida citizens under Section 403.412(5). SICA also asserted standing based on the proposed project's effects on its substantial interests and those of its members. SICA is a membership organization with 1,200 members, who reside on Singer Island. SICA has an office located at 1281 North Ocean Drive, Singer Island, Florida. It also owns submerged real property in the Lake Worth Lagoon just west of and adjacent to Singer Island. SICA's membership includes individuals and condominium associations. Several individual members and condominium association members own property that borders State Road AIA on Singer Island. Some have riparian rights to the Lake Worth Lagoon. SICA performed a survey of its members and received 330 responses. Ninety percent of those responding believed they would be affected by the proposed project. More than 75 percent said they fished in the Lagoon and believed the project would hurt fishing; 80 percent said they enjoy and study the wildlife around the Lagoon; and 72 percent believed wildlife viewing would be impacted by the project. Members of SICA use the Lake Worth Lagoon for boating, fishing, recreation, or enjoyment of wildlife. The membership and the corporation are concerned about the potential of the project to pollute the Lake Worth Lagoon and adversely affect the environmental resources of the Lagoon. SICA's purpose includes the preservation of the environmental resources of the Lake Worth Lagoon and opposition to proposals to fill the submerged lands along State Road AIA. The type of relief sought by SICA in this action is the type of relief that is proper for the corporation to seek on behalf of its members. Both SICA and a substantial number of its members are substantially affected by Simmons' proposed project. A number of issues raised by SICA and Friends were dropped by the time the parties filed their Prehearing Stipulation. SICA and Friends further refined their claims at final hearing. The remaining challenges to the project focus on turbidity and shading of seagrasses caused by the construction and operation of the project, as well as on the potential secondary impacts of utilities proposed to serve the residence on the island. Direct Impacts from Proposed Dock The proposed dock is significantly larger than a typical private, single-family dock. No other of its proportions can be found in Palm Beach County. Typically, private, single-family docks are four-feet wide and made of wood, with spaced wooden planks for decking. The proposed docking facility's size and construction technique are more typical of a commercial docking facility. A docking facility of the size and kind proposed is not required for reasonable access to Little Munyon Island. Rather, it is required for construction and maintenance of a 8,000 to 10,000 square-foot residence, plus swimming pool, that will be worth $12 million to $15 million when completed. A less intense use of the island would have fewer impacts on the environment. Alternatively, there are other ways to build a house on the island without constructing a permanent dock of this size. Simmons might be able to push a barge temporarily up to the island, construct the house and then mitigate for the temporary impacts of beaching the barge. Simmons also might be able to construct a temporary span of trusses, a system used by the Florida Department of Transportation when working on coastal islands. The amount of shading caused by a docking facility is influenced by numerous factors. But if other factors are equal, generally the larger the surface area of the dock, the more shading occurs; likewise, solid poured concrete decking shades twice as much as grated decking material. As a result, all other factors being equal, the proposed dock will produce more shade than a typical private, single-family dock. In addition, there is a halo effect around the footprint of a dock that is about 2.25 times the square footage of the dock. The area under solid concrete decking will receive no sunlight. No seagrasses will ever grow in this area, eliminating possible recruitment of seagrasses in this area. Simmons made a laudable effort to locate, configure, and orient his proposed docking facility so as to reduce the shading impact of the dock's footprint and halo effect. The use of grated material over the area of greatest seagrass cover also was appropriate. But shading impacts and halo effects were not avoided entirely. In its April 2000 biological survey, CZR depicted an area approximately 40 feet wide by 250 feet long between the west of Little Munyon Island and a sunken barge as a "barren," meaning it had no seagrasses. Clearly, sand has built up over the years in this area due to influence of the sunken barge, and parts of the sandbar may be exposed at every mean low tide. This area may be devoid of seagrasses. But other parts of the sandbar may only be exposed at every low, low (spring) tide and may not actually be "barren." An onsite inspection and video tape of the area was made by Carman Vare of the Palm Beach County Division of Environmental and Resources Management in August of 2001. This inspection and video confirmed that there were no seagrasses in the sandy area from the mean high tide line on Little Munyon Island running west along the proposed footprint of the dock for a distance of approximately 130 feet. But at a point approximately 130 feet from shore, within 5 feet north of the tape placed at the presumed centerline of the proposed dock and sandy area, Vare began to find rhizomes (roots) of Cuban Shoal Grass (Halodule wrightii) in the sediment. Rhizomes of this seagrass continued to be found out to approximately 182 feet from the shore. At that point, sparse patches of Johnson Seagrass began approximately 5-10 feet north of the tape. This type of grass continued to be found to a point roughly 205 feet from the shore. From 205 feet to 215 feet from the shore, Cuban Shoal Grass rhizomes reappeared. There were no seagrasses from 215 feet to the east edge of the barge, which is approximately 243 from the shore. The area around the barge has been scoured out by waves and currents. It is possible that Vare placed his tape somewhat north of the actual centerline of the proposed dock. It is not clear from the evidence, but a sunken piling Vare swam over at one point may have been north of the centerline of the proposed dock. Also, while no seagrasses were observed when Vare swam south of the tape, Vare did not swim further than 5 to 10 feet south of the tape, so he did not know how far south of his transect line the area was barren of seagrasses. In any event, it was clear that the entire area depicted by CZR as "barren" was not in fact completely devoid of seagrasses; there were seagrasses and seagrass rhizomes either within the footprint of the proposed dock in the 110 feet or so east of the sunken barge, or very close to the north of the footprint in that locale. The sunken barge is made of decomposing wood. It is about 30 feet wide and about 100 feet long. It is often exposed at low tides, but is submerged during high tides. While there are no seagrasses growing in the barge, the barge is providing some fish habitat. If the barge were removed, seagrasses probably would re-colonize the area. West of the barge for approximately 50 feet is a colony of lush Cuban Shoal Grass. Coverage is sparse very near the barge but quickly thickens to the west to approximately 75 percent coverage. (CZR mischaracterized the density of this grass as 30 percent, perhaps in part because CZR did not conduct its surveys during the optimal growing season). From 50 to 70 feet west of the barge, CZR found moderate (30 percent) cover of Paddle Grass (Halophila decipiens). There are no grasses from 70 to 103 feet west of the barge. However, CZR found moderate (30 percent) cover of Paddle Grass south of the proposed footprint of the access dock and east of the terminal platform, extending south past the end of the terminal platform. The proposed terminal platform is in approximately 8-9 feet of water. The sediments under the terminal platform are composed of sand, silt, clays and organic materials. There are no grasses under the proposed terminal platform. The terminal platform would be directly over lush beds of Halophila decipiens (paddle grass) and Halodule wrightii (shoal grass) if the proposed dock were shortened by 35 feet, as Simmons has suggested to avoid having to obtain consent of use of sovereign submerged lands. Secondary Impacts from Proposed Dock As indicated, Simmons plans to use the proposed docking facility for construction and maintenance of a 8,000 to 10,000 square foot residence. He plans to use 55-foot long construction barges, drawing 3-4 feet of water, to bring fill, rocks, and other construction materials to Little Munyon Island. The barges will be moored to the western side of the proposed terminal platform. The use of construction barges will cause turbidity during construction. Simmons proposes to offload tons of fill from the barge and carry this fill over the dock to Little Munyon Island. One estimate was that, if Simmons used barges 120-130 feet long and capable of hauling 300 tons of fill, he would need to deliver 27-30 barge loads of fill to the dock. There is a reasonable likelihood that some of this fill will fall into the water. Simmons provided no analysis of the impacts of offloading and delivering this much fill to the island. There was no evidence of how Simmons planned to move sand around to fill the island, or its potential to cause turbidity. The location of the proposed dock in this case complicates the navigation of barges and vessels to and from the dock. Little Munyon Island is roughly centered in the Lake Worth Lagoon; and, except for some protection from the island itself, the dock is fully exposed to wind from all directions. Meanwhile, the "sail effect" of large boats adds to the difficulty of navigating them in the wind. The proposed dock also is exposed to the full effect of the current. A tidal range of a couple of feet can cause a current of about 1-2 knots; mean tidal range in the location of the proposed dock is as much as 2.8 to 2.9 feet. Finally, the proposed dock is near the ICW, which has a lot of boat traffic and wake. All of these factors can affect maneuverability of boats, create closure problems, or push the boats away from the dock. Unless Simmons wants to run the serious risk of losing control of the construction barges and inadvertently damaging seagrass beds, he will have to use a tug with significant maneuvering power. Tugs create more hydraulic thrust than other vessels because they generate more torque. Tugs also have more prop wash than most boats because they have deeper draft and larger propellers, in the range of 3 1/2 feet in diameter. The proposed dock was designed to moor a vessel up to 120-foot long parallel to the western side of the terminal platform when not being used for construction barges. If not being used for either barges or one large vessel, the mooring could accommodate two vessels of between 50-60 feet in length. Although not contemplated or ideal, it would be physically possible to moor three large vessels west of and perpendicular to the terminal platform inside the four mooring piles located 40 feet off the terminal platform. (These piles are 33 feet apart and designed to secure the construction barges, or one large vessel, parallel to the western side of the terminal platform.) While there are railings on the access pier to discourage mooring, there are no railings on the terminal platform. It also would be possible to moor boats on the east side of the terminal platform, which would be over lush seagrass beds. Simmons plans to moor his boat there when the western side is occupied by construction barges. Boats of 50-60 feet usually have twin inboard engines that range from 400 to 600 horsepower each. They can have propellers of between 26-30 inches in diameter. The engines and propellers are installed in a declining angle on such boats with the thrust vector pointing downward toward the bottom. Boats in this size range generally of draw 4-6 feet of water depending on the size and type of the vessel. A 70- foot trawler draws 6 feet of water. Unlike outboard engines (which also typically are lower-powered), inboard engines do not turn. Larger vessels move around by employing differential power. With twin inboard engines, navigation can by accomplished by using power pulsing, using the engines at different speeds, or by making one engine push forward and the other push in reverse. Winds and currents increase the need to use pulse powering to maneuver into and away from docks. For these reasons, the operation of 50-60 foot boats even in 5-10 feet of water can disturb the bottom through hydraulic scouring. As indicated, tug boats maneuvering a barge can scour the bottom even more. DEP's staff concluded that the operation of the dock would have no effect on seagrasses and sediments and would not cause turbidity or scouring problems in part by applying a longstanding policy which assumes that turbidity will not be a concern if one foot of water is maintained between boats using a dock and the bottom. The permit contains a condition that Simmons maintain one foot below boats. The so-called one-foot rule was designed for small, outboard-powered boats. As larger and more powerful vessels have increasingly used Florida's relatively shallow waters, the rule has become antiquated and ineffective for protection of marine resources from scouring and turbidity. Certainly, it will not be effective to minimize the impacts of scouring and turbidity from vessels of the size authorized and expected to use this dock. The so-called one-foot rule also does not differentiate between types of sediments. There is a "hole" approximately under and just west of the northernmost 60 feet of the proposed terminal platform; the hole also extends to the north beyond the proposed terminal platform. The water in the "hole" is approximately 8 feet deeper than the surrounding areas. The "hole" has been there for years. It could have been caused by dredging back in the 1940s. It also is just west of where a previous dock was located and could have been caused by prop-dredging (or perhaps by a paddlewheel, which used the mid-1960s). The "hole" is a silt trap. There is approximately 5 feet of silt in the bottom of the "hole." The sediment in the hole consists of very fine particles of muck and silt, with some decomposing drift algae. The silts in the "hole" probably come from the Earman River, which drains urbanized areas of North Palm Beach and discharges into the Lake Worth Lagoon just across the Lagoon from the site. There are no seagrasses in the "hole." Neither CZR nor DEP knew the "hole" was there. CZR did not identify it on its biological survey. Simmons provided no analysis of the sediments in the hole or in the mooring area of the proposed dock. DEP provided no analysis or testimony of the effect of the sediments in the "hole" on turbidity and water quality. Silts and muck cause turbidity, which is a measure of water clarity. Re-suspended mucks and silts can impact seagrasses by reducing light penetration through the water and by settling on their leaves. Silts stirred up from the operation of tugboats and large boats at the end of the proposed dock could settle on the grasses under the 4-foot grated area and negatively impact the very seagrasses that DEP was trying to protect. Once re-suspended, sediments can persist in the water column for 20-40 minutes, depending on the currents. A knot or two of current can suspend silts for half an hour and transport them a mile away. On an incoming tide, such a current could transport re-suspended sediments toward and into MacArthur State Park, just 1,100 feet away. To determine the extent of degradation of the turbidity standard in the OFW of the State Park, DEP would have to know the background turbidity in the Park. Neither Simmons nor DEP did a hydrographic survey or any other analysis of the project for its effect on the OFW. Farther west of the proposed terminal platform, the bottom rises out of the "hole" to a depth of 8-9 feet. Starting there, and extending west all the way to the edge of the ICW, there is sparse but continuous Paddle Grass (Halophila decipiens). Allison Holzhausen, an environmental analyst with Palm Beach County, has run transects throughout the area of Lake Worth Lagoon between the proposed terminal platform and the ICW and has not found any place in that area where seagrasses did not grow. Water depths in this area do not exceed approximately 14 feet. Depending on water clarity, Paddle Grass can grow in deep waters and have been found in water up to 25 meters deep in the Atlantic Ocean off Palm Beach County. CZR provided no biological survey of the seagrass communities west of the mooring area, nor did it analyze the resources or do a bathymetric survey of the area between the proposed dock and Simmons's dock on the mainland west of the ICW. This information would be needed to determine whether the operation of Simmons's boat to and from the dock on a continuing basis would impact seagrasses and to locate the best place for a channel. If the proposed dock were shortened by 35 feet, as Simmons has suggested to avoid having to obtain consent of use, the terminal platform and mooring areas would be directly over lush seagrass beds. In addition, the water there would be just 6.4 feet, or less, at MLW (mean low water); there was no evidence of detailed bathymetric information in the area. Depths would be even lower at low, low (spring) tides. Several witnesses testified that the 7.4 foot depth in the area indicated on Sheet 3 of 5 of the Plan View in Simmon's application was at MLW. But Sheet 3 of 5 indicates that "datum is NGVD," meaning the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, and Sheet 4 of 5 of the Plan View indicates that MLW is approximately a foot less than NGVD. Impacts on seagrasses from scouring and turbidity would be even greater if the proposed dock is shortened by 35 feet. Secondary Impacts of Wetland Fill When DEP gave notice of intent to issue the Permit, it was operating under the assumption and promise that there would be "no discharge" of wastewater on Little Munyon Island. Under the proposed "Auto-Flash" wastewater system, the only effluent would be solid "sludge," which would be removed from the island twice a year. This assumption continued into final hearing. On August 7, 2001--after the permit was issued, and just a couple of weeks before final hearing--Simmons proposed a different type of wastewater treatment system that would spray-irrigate treated wastewater. The new proposed system would provide aerobic and anaerobic treatment, filter the effluent, chlorinate it, and then spray it at a rate of up to 1,040 gallons per day onto the surface of the Little Munyon Island within approximately 50 feet of the water's edge. In effect, Simmons went back to his original proposal for a "waste water treatment/treatment by small on- site package plant not septic tank . . . water for irrigation and toilets will be re-used onsite treated wastewater." This system was rejected by DEP in its denial of November 4, 2000, because it lacked information on the facility and whether there would be a discharge. DEP's engineers did not review the system again after August 7, 2001. The disposal of treated effluent from the onsite sewage treatment plant raises legitimate concerns over the potential of the proposed utilities to impact surface waters. Simmons's engineer, John Potts, conceded that there will be nutrients in the wastewater. Nutrients from wastewater can cause algae to grow, which affects the health of seagrasses. Potts was unable to provide detail as to the amount of nutrients and other constituents of the wastewater. DEP's experts were not familiar with the criteria for reuse of treated effluent. DEP did not know the transmissivity of the fill and could not say whether treated effluent sprayed on the island would percolate through the fill and run into the Lagoon across the top of the rock strata on the island. Potts did not know how stormwater would be handled on the island; a proposed stormwater system has yet to be designed. For that reason, Potts could not say whether the sprayed treated effluent could reach the Lake Worth Lagoon. DEP also did not know how stormwater was proposed to be treated on site. The solar power system proposed in the Little Munyon Island Power and Sewage Plan would only produce only 31 kW of power and provide 19 percent of the complex's power and at peak times, not the 90 percent estimated by Simmons's consultants. In effect, the propane generator was not a "backup," as suggested, but the main power source for the house and utilities and only source of power for the wastewater treatment system, since the generator must be running to provide waste heat for the wastewater system to work. Instead of two available sources of electrical power for the wastewater treatment system in case one failed, there is really only one, the propane generator. The lack of any backup for the sewage treatment system increases its potential to fail and adversely affect surface water quality and the marine environment of the Lake Worth Lagoon. DEP did not analyze stormwater or the discharge of treated wastewater and its effect on surrounding waters, stating: "Typically we don't review storm water for single family residences." But Simmons's proposed project is not a typical single family residence. In rebuttal, Simmons put on evidence that there would be approximately 14,800 square feet between the retaining wall and the 50-foot setback line and that the depth of 1,000 gallons of sprayed treated wastewater would be only one-tenth of an inch if sprayed equally over that entire area. Evapotranspiration alone would account for the entire 1,000 gallons, according to the Basis of Review of the South Florida Water Management District. But the evidence was not clear as to how much of the 14,800 square feet between the retaining wall and the 50-foot setback would be available for spray irrigation. The weight of the evidence was that Simmons failed to provide reasonable assurances that the disposal of wastewater on the island will not have adverse impacts on the marine resources of the Lake Worth Lagoon unless a specific conditions were added to the permit: that a properly designed and constructed stormwater system be established prior to operation of the sewage treatment facility; and that backup systems and emergency procedures be established in the event of any failure of the main system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the application of Robert Simmons, Jr., for an ERP and Consent of Use for his proposed docking facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 16th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ernest A. Cox, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive Suite 500E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6161 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Rod Tennyson, Esquire 1801 Australian Avenue, Suite 101 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. 926 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
